US 8851068B2

Summary — U.S. Patent 8,851,068 B2 (US8851068B2)

Search results note

I searched for the exact identifier 8851068B2 (and its numeric form 8,851,068). I did not find any CAFC 2026 docket entries, PTAB/IPR proceedings, or 2026 litigation involving this patent in the available web results — the CAFC/docket searches returned empty. USPTO-side records (the issued-patent PDF on USPTO storage and patent databases) do confirm the bibliographic data below. Separately, be careful not to confuse this with US8550068B2 ("Atomizer-vaporizer for a personal vaporizing inhaler," a different patent by different inventors) that surfaced in results.

Bibliographic data (authoritative from the issued patent PDF / USPTO record)

• Title: Personal inhalation devices
• Patent No.: US 8,851,068 B2 (application No. 12/869,000)
• Inventors: Scott A. Cohen (Portland, ME) and Michael J. Bedecs (Jupiter, FL)
  • ⚠️ Minor uncertainty: the USPTO PDF OCR renders the second inventor's name as "Michael J. Bedees," while Google Patents and the assignment record show "Michael J. Bedecs." I cannot fully resolve the OCR-vs-database discrepancy from my sources; the majority of records use "Bedecs."
• Assignee: AJ Marketing LLC, Portland, ME (US)
• Filing date: August 26, 2010
• Priority date: April 21, 2009 (Continuation-In-Part of design applications 29/335,784, 29/335,785, and 29/335,786)
• Issue date: October 7, 2014
• Prior publication: US 2011/0036346 A1 (published February 17, 2011)
• Patent term adjustment: 646 days (per the USPTO notice on the front page)
• Claims / drawings: 18 claims, 6 drawing sheets
• Legal status: Active (expiration adjusted to ~January 27, 2031 per Google Patents' estimate — this is an assumption, not a legal conclusion)

Abstract (verbatim)

"A personal inhalation device includes an outer shell having an orifice formed therein and containing a medium having one or more deliverables and an atomizing unit disposed within the shell. The atomizing unit atomizes the medium when a user puffs on the orifice such that vapor containing the deliverables is discharged through the orifice. The personal inhalation device is further capable of metering the deliverables discharged with the vapor."

Plain-language overview of the independent claim

The patent contains one independent claim (claim 1); claims 2–18 are all dependent claims.

Claim 1 covers a regulated e-cigarette-style personal inhalation device combining:

1. Outer shell with orifice — a shell (typically cigarette-shaped) that holds a medium containing one or more "deliverables" (e.g., nicotine, caffeine, THC, medications, vitamins, flavorings).
2. Atomizing unit — heats air flowing over/through it; the heated air atomizes the medium into a vapor containing the deliverables when the user puffs on the orifice, so the vapor is discharged through the orifice.
3. Programmable control electronics — meter (regulate the amount of) the deliverables in the discharged vapor, and include an input device user interface for selectively reprogramming at least one of several unique operating parameters.
4. Specific input-device limitation — the input device must be at least one of: (a) a pin that defines the operating parameter (e.g., like a key with a resistive circuit/mechanical teeth), or (b) a pressure transducer triggered by a sequence of inhalations, exhalations, combinations thereof, tapping on the device, or tapping the device against a surface.
5. Specific indicator-light assembly — a translucent base member (with a socket) mounted in one end of the shell, a translucent lens member with a body portion defining an outer surface and first/second connectors (the first connector inserted into the socket), a tip member mounted on the second connector, and a light source on the base member that illuminates the lens's outer surface when activated.

In short: claim 1 is directed to a programmable, dose-metering electronic inhalation device with a particular puff/tap-sensed or pin-based programming interface and a specific stacked lens/tip indicator-light construction.

Dependent-claim highlights (for context)

• Claims 2, 10–13: metering maximum dosage per single puff (via atomizer on-time control or atomizer-chamber temperature control).
• Claims 14–18: metering the maximum number of doses over a set time period (minimum interval between activations; cap on number of activations per period; cumulative atomizer on-time).
• Claim 3: light source is a bi-directional LED (usable as emitter and detector).
• Claim 5: multi-color indicator light keyed to the deliverable type.
• Claims 6–8: display, audio signal device, and operation-data retention/download means.

Uncertainty statement

• I found no CAFC 2026 docket or post-issuance proceeding for 8851068B2 in my searches; absence of results is not definitive proof none exists — you may want to check the CAFC docket system (cafc.uscourts.gov) and USPTO Patent Center/PTAB directly.
• Inventor-name spelling discrepancy noted above.
• "Active" status and the 2031 adjusted-expiration date are Google Patents' assumptions, not official USPTO legal-status determinations.

I'll search for litigation involving this specific patent across multiple sources.

Initial results only show citation references, not litigation. Let me search dedicated litigation databases and docket sources.

Let me check litigation aggregator sites directly and search with different phrasings.

I have completed my searches. Based on the available information, here is my answer:

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent 8,851,068 B2 ("Personal inhalation devices")

No litigation involving US8851068B2 was found in any of the sources searched.

What I searched

• General web/litigation queries combining the patent number ("8851068," "8851068B2," "8,851,068," "8,851,068 B2") with litigation terms such as docket, complaint, defendant, plaintiff, infringement, litigation, civil action, lawsuit, CAFC.
• Queries pairing the assignee/inventor ("AJ Marketing," "Cohen") with the patent number and e-cigarette/vaping context.
• The Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) was referenced as a target source, but searches returned no Unified Patents case-list entry for this patent number.
• Earlier analysis (in the previously generated summary for this patent) also found no CAFC docket entries, PTAB/IPR proceedings, or 2026 litigation involving 8851068B2.

What the searches did surface (non-litigation, context only)

The only hits for the number 8851068 were citation/prior-art references in later patent documents and patent-information aggregator pages, e.g.:

• FreePatentsOnline.com listing of the patent itself ("Personal inhalation devices — AJ Marketing LLC — Title").
• Later patents citing 8851068 as prior art (e.g., US D807574, US10925316, and others), which is normal citation practice and not evidence of litigation.

No plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or status can be reported because no case was identified.

Cautions and caveats

1. Absence of evidence is not definitive proof of non-existence. My searches rely on indexed public web content as of the search date. District-court dockets (PACER), certain state-court filings, and some PTAB records may not be fully indexed or may be paywalled/behind login.
2. Do not confuse this patent with similar numbers. As noted in the prior summary, US8550068B2 ("Atomizer-vaporizer for a personal vaporizing inhaler") is a different patent by different inventors that can surface in searches for similar numbers. None of the results I reviewed indicated litigation for either patent, but any future diligence should be careful to confirm the exact number.
3. Recommended verification steps if a definitive clearance answer is required: check PACER (pacer.uscourts.gov) for nationwide party searches on AJ Marketing LLC / Scott A. Cohen / Michael J. Bedecs; check USPTO Patent Center for assignment and maintenance records; check the CAFC docket (cafc.uscourts.gov) for appeals; and check USPTO PTAB (PTAB Board Notice / Patent Center) for IPR/PGR/CBM proceedings naming the patent.

Bottom line: As of April 26, 2026, based on all available search results, there is no known litigation involving US patent 8,851,068 B2 that I can identify.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. There are no inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews, or covered business method reviews against US 8,851,068 B2, and none have ever been instituted, denied, settled, or decided. The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API — the canonical source for this analysis — returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest, and independent web searches (including for "8851068" / "8,851,068" combined with IPR/PGR/CBM/PTAB terms and for petitioner-side activity by "AJ Marketing LLC") surfaced no PTAB petition, no institution decision, and no Final Written Decision citing this patent. The web results that do exist are exclusively patent-family and citation pages (Google Patents, Justia, FreePatentsOnline, uspto.report).

Bottom-line defensive posture: This patent is completely untested in AIA trial proceedings — all 18 claims (claims 1–18) remain exactly as issued, with no PTAB estoppel running against any would-be petitioner. For a defendant, that cuts both ways: there is no prior IPR "shield" to lean on, but equally there is no PTAB-imposed estoppel bar (§ 315(e)(2)) and no claim-narrowing to work around. If you are being asserted against, the AIA-trial field is wide open — subject only to the one-year post-service filing bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).

Because the structured data contains zero proceedings, there are no per-proceeding entries to report. The section-by-section analysis below is provided in lieu of fabricated dockets (which I will not invent).

No proceedings exist — verification trail

• USPTO ODP (canonical): "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest."
• Web search — patent number + trial-type terms: Searches for "8,851,068" OR "8851068" inter partes review IPR patent, "US 8,851,068" OR "US8851068" "IPR" OR "PGR" OR "CBM", and "8851068" PTAB trial "inter partes review" OR "post grant review" petition returned no PTAB documents — only patent bibliographic/citation aggregator pages.
• Web search — owner/petitioner activity: Searches for "AJ Marketing" "personal inhalation" patent IPR PTAB and "AJ Marketing LLC" patent litigation OR "inter partes review" returned no PTAB filings; the only hits were patent-family pages and third-party patents citing US8851068B2 in their "Cited By" sections.
• CAFC check (from the prior summary section): No CAFC docket entries or appeals involving this patent were found, which is consistent with zero PTAB Final Written Decisions (a FWD appeal would produce a CAFC docket).

Independent verification path (recommended before you rely on this in litigation): Query the USPTO's official PTAB trial-search tool directly at https://ptab.uspto.gov (search by patent number "8,851,068" or "8851068") and the USPTO Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov) for the '068 file wrapper. The ODP ingest lag means a very recently filed petition (days old) could theoretically exist without appearing here — but nothing in the public record suggests one.

Strategic summary

Claims CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. No claim of US 8,851,068 B2 has been canceled, disclaimed, or reexamined out of the patent. All 18 claims — the sole independent claim 1 (programmable, dose-metering personal inhalation device with the pin/pressure-transducer input-device limitation and the specific translucent base/lens/tip indicator-light assembly) and dependent claims 2–18 (per-puff maximum dosage via atomizer on-time or temperature; per-period dose caps via minimum interval, activation-count cap, or cumulative on-time; bi-directional LED; multi-color deliverable-keyed light; display; audio; data retention/download) — remain untested and in force. Note that no post-grant challenge of any kind (including ex parte reexamination) surfaced in the record, so the claims are also unmodified by any USPTO post-issuance proceeding.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR/PGR/CBM has ever been filed, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel exists against anyone. Every prior-art ground (pre-AIA §§ 102/103, since the application claims a 2009–2010 filing date and is therefore pre-AIA for prior-art purposes) that a defendant can develop remains available. The operative constraint is 35 U.S.C. § 315(b): an IPR petition must be filed within one year of service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent. If you have already been sued and the one-year clock has run, IPR is barred (absent a separate, later-served complaint or a different patent in the family); if you have not been sued, or the suit is recent, the window is open. There is no CBM option (the CBM program sunset in 2020), so IPR is the only AIA vehicle for a § 103/§ 102 challenge. PGR is unavailable because the patent issued from an application filed before March 16, 2013.

Pattern signals. None exist. There is no serial petitioner, no repeated filings, no Unified Patents/RPX-style defensive-aggregator chain, and no PTAB track record by AJ Marketing LLC (the patent owner) to gauge litigiousness at the Board. The absence of any IPR is itself notable: this patent has been cited as prior art against numerous later e-cigarette/vaping patents (Juul/Pax Labs, Altria, Fontem, Philip Morris, etc., per the "Cited By" listings), has spawned continuations (US 14/487,494 and US 15/425,850 — both listed as abandoned in the USPTO family data), and has sat in a heavily-litigated technology space for over a decade without attracting a single AIA petition. That suggests either that asserted parties have settled or taken licenses, that the claim scope (particularly the unusual pin/tap-programming and indicator-light-assembly limitations) has proven hard to read on commercial products, or that the patent has simply never been centrally asserted. None of those hypotheses is verified by the record — flag it as an inference, not a finding.

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the null result on official systems before making any litigation decision. Pull the PTAB trial-search record at https://ptab.uspto.gov (patent number search) and the file wrapper at https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Also check the USPTO Patent Assignment database for current ownership — the record shows assignment to AJ Marketing LLC, but confirm who holds enforcement rights today before you negotiate.
2. Because there is no FWD to cite, there is no PTAB "win" to leverage. If your goal is invalidity, the absence of prior IPRs means you have a clean slate to file your own IPR within the § 315(b) one-year window (measured from service of the complaint against you or your customer). Build the petition around the best pre-2010 e-cigarette/aerosol art (e.g., the Hon Lik "non-combustible electronic spray cigarette" family, CN100381083C / CN2719043Y, and early Philip Morris electrically heated smoking systems, all of which predate the 2009 priority date and appear in this patent's own citation neighborhood).
3. If you are already past the § 315(b) bar, your AIA-trial route is closed for this patent, and your prior-art defenses must be pressed in district court under § 282 — where, again, no IPR estoppel restricts you, but you also have no PTAB record to cite.
4. If you are a plaintiff-side practitioner or investor: the "no PTAB activity" signal cuts against the patent's practical strength — well-asserted patents in the vaping space (this one is cited by Juul/Pax, Altria, and Fontem families) typically attract IPRs within months of a significant assertion. The absence of any petition over 11+ years of enforceability is a meaningful tell that the patent's commercial footprint and claim scope have not yet been stress-tested. All 18 claims are presumed valid, but they are entirely untested — expect a serious validity challenge to center on claim 1's combination of puff-actuated atomization, metering control electronics, and the specific pin/pressure-transducer programming interface.

Caveat on dates and status: The "active" status and the adjusted-expiration estimate (~2031-01-27 per Google Patents; one aggregator, patents-review.com, lists 2032-06-02) are assumptions from third-party aggregators, not official USPTO legal-status determinations. This does not affect the PTAB analysis — no AIA proceeding exists under any of those dates — but verify expiration/status on USPTO systems if the remaining term matters to your strategy.

I'll research the USPTO assignment records for US8851068B2, starting with targeted searches.

The Google Patents legal-events feed shows an inventor-to-AJ Marketing assignment in 2010, but I need reel/frame and post-issuance records. Let me search more specifically.

The initial assignment (inventors → AJ Marketing LLC) is confirmed in Google Patents legal events but without reel/frame. Let me dig into the company background and any later transfers.

I have reached the search-step limit, so I'll synthesize the verified record now. Important caveat up front: I could not retrieve the USPTO reel/frame numbers or correspondent-of-record names for this patent from the available indexed sources (the Assignment Center's own interface was not directly queryable in my searches). I will state plainly what is and is not verified rather than fabricate records.

Inventors

• Scott A. Cohen — Portland, ME (US). Employer at filing: not independently verified; the assignee AJ Marketing LLC is located in Portland, ME, Cohen's home city, suggesting he was a principal of the assignee.
• Michael J. Bedecs — Jupiter, FL (US). Employer at filing: not independently verified; same AJ Marketing LLC context. ⚠️ The issued-patent PDF OCR renders this name "Bedees" (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/bf/24/2c/429bb8cedc9609/US8851068.pdf), while Google Patents and the USPTO assignment event use "Bedecs." I cannot fully resolve the OCR-vs-record discrepancy.

Unusual patterns: none verified. Both inventors assigned their interests to AJ Marketing LLC at filing (August 2010), and I found no evidence they departed or that a portfolio fire-sale followed. Both remain the named inventors on the continuation applications (US2015/0238713 A1 and US2017/0143917 A1), which also name AJ Marketing LLC.

Original assignee

• AJ Marketing LLC, Portland, ME (US) — the entity named as assignee on the face of US8851068B2 and in the USPTO assignment event of 2010-08-26.
• Line of business / product: No evidence found that AJ Marketing LLC shipped a product embodying the claims. The patent itself describes a regulated e-cigarette-style device, and the specification even lists a "marketing mode" for retail display — but no commercial product, web presence, or FDA/tobacco-registration trail surfaced. The "Marketing" in the name suggests a promotion/licensing vehicle rather than a manufacturer, but that is naming-based inference only.
• Current status: Operating / dissolved / acquired — unclear. No dissolution, bankruptcy, or acquisition record for AJ Marketing LLC was found in my searches. Google Patents lists the '068 patent as "Active" (adjusted expiration ~2031-01-27, an assumption, not a USPTO legal-status determination), which is consistent with the original assignee still owning it.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Patent Assignment Center's reel/frame records for US8851068B2 could not be fully retrieved from the sources available to me (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov was not directly queryable in my search tool). What follows is the record as corroborated by the Google Patents legal-events feed (which mirrors USPTO assignment data) and the issued patent. I am flagging reel/frame and correspondent fields as unverified rather than inventing them.

• ~2010-08-26 (executed/recorded same day as filing, per Google Patents legal event dated 2010-08-26) — Reel/Frame not verified — search Assignment Center
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: Scott A. Cohen and Michael J. Bedecs (inventors)
  • Assignee: AJ Marketing LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: Standard inventor-to-company assignment, recorded contemporaneously with the August 26, 2010 filing of application 12/869,000. This is the only assignment event identified.

No post-issuance assignments were found. No transfer from AJ Marketing LLC to any LLC, NPE, defensive aggregator, or operating company appears in the Google Patents legal-events feed, in the cited-by/family records, or in any web-indexed assignment data. The continuation applications US14/487,494 (filed 2014-09-16, published as US2015/0238713 A1) and US15/425,850 (filed 2017-02-06, published as US2017/0143917 A1) both name AJ Marketing LLC as applicant/assignee — consistent with an unbroken chain from the original assignee.

Verification step: confirm directly at the USPTO Patent Assignment Search (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov — search by patent number 8851068 or application 12/869,000) to capture the reel/frame and correspondent of record.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8851068B2
    2009 : Design applications filed Apr 21
    2010 : Utility application filed Aug 26
         : Inventors assign to AJ Marketing LLC
    2011 : Application published Feb 17
    2014 : Patent issued Oct 7
         : Continuation US14/487494 filed
    2017 : Continuation US15/425850 filed
    2031 : Adjusted expiration approx Jan 27

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No transfer from an operating assignee to a licensing-only LLC exists on the record; the sole assignee (AJ Marketing LLC) has held the patent since filing. The "Marketing" name and the absence of any identified product are weak naming/behavioral observations, not a recorded shell transfer. No registered-agent address or single-purpose-LLC formation record was verified.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither AJ Marketing LLC nor any other party in the chain matches Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Round Rock, or any entity surfaced by Unified Patents/RPX in my searches. Earlier litigation diligence (see Litigation summary above) found no infringement suits naming this patent.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / no data. With only one recorded assignment event and no retrievable correspondent-of-record information, this signal cannot be assessed. No evidence of a repeat-player NPE filing attorney.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are no consecutive chained-LLC transfers; the record shows a single 2010 assignment to the original assignee.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No assignment within six months of any suit exists because no suit exists and no post-issuance assignment exists.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceedings involving AJ Marketing LLC or the patent were found.
7. Privateering — not present. No operating-company-to-NPE transfer and no SEC/10-K/8-K trail indicating a manufacturer offloading the patent to an assertor was found.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

Insufficient data — the record shows only the original 2010 inventor-to-company assignment, with the original assignee (AJ Marketing LLC) apparently still holding the patent, and no litigation, no post-issuance transfers, and no NPE/defensive-aggregator involvement identified.

The single verified assignment event (2010-08-26, inventors Cohen and Bedecs → AJ Marketing LLC) is the ordinary employer-assignment pattern and carries no NPE signal; no reel/frame entries support a shell transfer, cascading chain, pre-litigation conveyance, or known-asserter involvement. Because I could not directly query the USPTO Assignment Center for reel/frame and correspondent data, the definitive "no recorded assignments beyond the original" finding should be confirmed at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov (search 8851068 / 12/869,000) before relying on it for clearance work.

I have to stop searching due to a step limit, but I already captured the authoritative examiner-cited reference list for US8851068B2 from the issued patent's "Referenced Cited" section (via the Justia record of the patent, corroborated by Google Patents and FreePatentsOnline). Here is my analysis, with confidence levels flagged where I could not pull full texts in this session.

A. Scope note: what "citations for 8851068B2" means here

For a § 102 prior-art analysis, the operative list is the backward citations — the "Referenced Cited" section printed on the face of US8851068B2 (references considered by the examiner). The long "Cited By / Families Citing" lists on aggregator pages are forward citations (later patents citing '068 as prior art) — those postdate the patent and cannot be prior art. The backward list contains 14 references: 13 U.S. documents and 1 Chinese utility model. Source: https://patents.justia.com/patent/[8851068](/patent/8851068) (Referenced Cited), corroborated by the Google Patents page for US8851068B2. Examiner: Melanie Hand (Primary), Ned T. Heffner (Assistant).

B. The cited references — full citation data (verified from the record)

All 14 references below predate the '068 filing date (2010-08-26; claimed priority 2009-04-21), so each is at least prima facie available as prior art under pre-AIA § 102 (the application is pre-AIA; the relevant subsections are § 102(a)/(b)/(e), with the Hon and CN references also potentially § 102(a)/(b) and the issued U.S. patents § 102(b)/(e)).

C. Brief descriptions and § 102 assessment per reference

I was not able to retrieve the full text of every reference in this session (search budget exhausted), so descriptions below are tiered by confidence. Bold items are verified or high-confidence; items marked ⚠️ are my best identification but should be confirmed against the PDF before reliance — I will not fabricate titles or content I could not verify.

1. US 4,520,451 — McLaughlin (1985-05-28) ⚠️

• Description: I could not verify the title or disclosure in this session. It is an early-1980s U.S. patent and is the oldest citation on the face of '068. Do not assume from its date alone that it is an e-cigarette device; it may be cited for a more generic feature (e.g., a simulated-smoking or aerosol/vapor-generation concept).
• § 102 potential: Unverifiable without the text. Given its age and the very specific claim-1 combination, full anticipation of claim 1 is implausible on its face; at most it could be § 102/§ 103 evidence for a generic element (shell/orifice or vapor generation).
• Confidence: LOW — verify against the patent PDF before use.

2. US 5,899,204 — Cochran (1999-05-04) ⚠️

• Description: Not verified in this session.
• § 102 potential: Unverifiable. No complete-claim anticipation can be responsibly asserted without the text.

3. US 6,102,036 — Slutsky et al. (2000-08-15) ⚠️

• Description: My recollection is a breath-actuated inhaler (consistent with Slutsky's respiratory-medicine work), i.e., a device triggered by the user's inhalation — relevant to the "puffs on the orifice → actuation" concept.
• § 102 potential: At most evidence for a breath/puff-triggered actuation element. It would not disclose the e-cigarette atomizing unit, metering control electronics, pin/pressure-transducer programming interface, or the claimed indicator-light assembly — so no anticipation of claim 1 or any complete dependent claim.
• Confidence: MEDIUM-LOW on the title; verify.

4. US 6,443,146 B1 — Voges (2002-09-03) ⚠️

• Description: Voges is known for electronic aerosol/inhaler technology. I could not verify the exact title in this session; likely an inhaler that generates an aerosol electronically (relevant to an "atomizing unit" + control-electronics architecture).
• § 102 potential: Potentially relevant to the atomizer + control-electronics elements, but not to the claimed indicator-light assembly or the pin/pressure-transducer input-device limitation. No anticipation of claim 1.
• Confidence: MEDIUM-LOW; verify.

5. US 6,684,880 B2 — Trueba (2004-02-03) ⚠️ — content not verified in this session.

6. US 6,772,756 B2 — Shayan (2004-08-10) ⚠️ — content not verified in this session. (Note: this same reference is cited on later vaping-related patents, e.g., design patent D876719, suggesting it is in the aerosol/smoking-device art — but I will not assert a title.)

7. US 7,131,599 B2 — Katase (2006-11-07) ⚠️ — content not verified in this session.

8. US 7,617,821 B2 — Hughes (2009-11-17) ⚠️ — content not verified in this session.

9. US 2004/0233668 A1 — Telfer et al. (2004-11-25) ⚠️ — content not verified in this session.

10. US 2006/0196505 A1 — Izuchukwu (published 2006-09-07) — HIGH confidence on subject matter

• Description: An early electronic-cigarette / simulated-smoking-device publication (cigarette-shaped shell, liquid/medium reservoir, atomizer, puff-actuated operation) — one of the formative U.S. e-cigarette documents. This maps directly onto claim 1's preamble: outer shell with orifice, medium with a deliverable, atomizing unit that vaporizes on a puff.
• § 102 potential: Strong candidate for the structural preamble and the "heats air / atomizes medium on puff" functionality of claim 1. However, Izuchukwu (as I recall it) does not disclose (i) metering control electronics, (ii) the pin- or pressure-transducer-sequence programming interface, or (iii) the specific translucent-base/lens/tip indicator-light assembly. Therefore: no complete anticipation of claim 1 or of any dependent claim standing alone (each dependent claim incorporates claim 1). Best used in a § 103 combination.
• Confidence: MEDIUM-HIGH on characterization; verify element-by-element.

11. US 2006/0196518 A1 — Hon (published 2006-09-07) — HIGH confidence on subject matter

• Description: Hon Lik's early electronic atomization cigarette application — the foundational Ruyan-style device: a cigarette-shaped inhaler with a liquid nicotine reservoir, an electrically heated atomizer, a battery, and a suction/puff-triggered switch that energizes the heater to produce an inhalable aerosol.
• § 102 potential: The strongest single-reference candidate for claim 1's preamble + atomizing-unit functionality ("heats air flowing thereon; heated air atomizes the medium on a puff"). It does not, in my recollection, disclose the metering control electronics, the programmable pin/pressure-transducer input device, or the claimed multi-part indicator-light assembly — so no complete anticipation of claim 1; highly relevant § 103 primary reference.
• Confidence: MEDIUM-HIGH; verify.

12. US 2007/0267031 A1 — Hon (published 2007-11-22) — HIGH confidence on subject matter

• Description: A later Hon electronic cigarette application in the same family, generally elaborating the atomizer/reservoir/cigarette-shell architecture and puff-actuated heating.
• § 102 potential: Same assessment as #11. It may contain more detail on the shell/airflow path (relevant to the outer-shell and atomization-chamber features), but I have no basis to say it discloses metering electronics, the specific programming input, or the claimed light assembly. No complete anticipation of claim 1 on the available information.
• Confidence: MEDIUM-HIGH; verify.

13. US 2009/0126745 A1 — Hon (published 2009-05-21) — MEDIUM-HIGH confidence on subject matter

• Description: A further Hon-family electronic cigarette application (pre-grant publication of the Ruyan-type device), filed/dated closest in time to the '068 priority date.
• § 102 potential: The closest-in-time e-cigarette art in the list. Same structural overlap as #11/#12. No complete anticipation of claim 1 on the available information (the metering + programming-interface + light-assembly limitations remain the differentiators). Also highly relevant for § 103, and any of the Hon documents could combine with each other or with the dosage/metering art.
• Confidence: MEDIUM-HIGH; verify.

14. CN 201213951 Y — Changzhou Fu'aifa Import & Export Co. (published 2009-04-01; filed 2008-06-19) — VERIFIED title

• Description: "Mouth suction type portable atomization health-care instrument" (口腔吸入式便携雾化保健器) — a portable, mouth-suction-activated atomization device for delivering a substance by inhalation (per the Google Patents record of the reference). This is a foreign utility model published before the '068 priority date of 2009-04-21, so it is § 102(a)/(b) art.
• § 102 potential: Relevant to the suction/puff-actuated atomization + portable-shell concept. No indication it discloses metering control electronics, the pin/pressure-transducer programming interface, or the claimed indicator-light assembly — no complete anticipation of claim 1 on available information.
• Confidence: HIGH on bibliographic data and title; MEDIUM on full content.

D. Bottom line on § 102 anticipation

None of the 14 cited references, on the information available, appears to anticipate any complete claim (1–18) of US8851068B2 standing alone. The reason is structural: claim 1 is an unusually narrow combination requiring five independent feature groups — (i) the cigarette-style shell + medium + heat-air atomizing unit; (ii) metering control electronics; (iii) an input device limited to a programming pin or a pressure transducer triggered by an inhalation/exhalation/tap sequence; (iv) a specific indicator-light assembly (translucent base with socket → translucent lens with two connectors → tip member → light source illuminating the lens body); and (v) all of the above together. Claims 2–18 each incorporate claim 1, so they cannot be anticipated by a reference that fails claim 1.

The realistic roles of the cited art are:

• Preamble / atomizer structure (claim 1, first two paragraphs): closest art is the Hon family (#11–#13), Izuchukwu (#10), and CN 201213951 Y (#14).
• Breath/puff-actuated triggering: possibly Slutsky (#3) and the Hon/Izuchukwu devices.
• Electronic control of an aerosol generator: Voges (#4) is the most plausible candidate but was not verifiable here.
• Dependent-claim features (per-puff max dose via atomizer on-time/temperature; per-period dose caps; bi-directional LED; display; audio; data download; color-keyed light): none of the 14 references can be tied to these features from the record I retrieved; the examiner presumably cited the list mainly against the core e-cigarette structure.
• § 103 obviousness, not § 102 anticipation, is where this cited art would be deployed — e.g., Hon (#11–#13) as the primary e-cigarette reference combined with a metering/dose-control reference and/or a light-tip reference.

E. Important caveats (read before relying on this)

1. Descriptions for items #1–#9 are unverified. The search session was cut off before I could pull the full text of each cited document. I have deliberately not invented titles or disclosure content for those references. Before any invalidity or clearance position, pull each PDF from USPTO Patent Center/PatFT or Espacenet and confirm: (a) exact title, (b) whether it discloses metering, a programming pin, a puff/tap-sequence pressure transducer, and the claimed indicator-light stack.
2. This is the examiner's cited list, not a comprehensive search. A complete prior-art picture would also require searching uncited art (e.g., the Hon "non-combustible electronic spray cigarette" family CN100381083C/CN2719043Y and early Philip Morris electrically heated smoking systems, which appear in the '068 citation neighborhood but are not on the face of the patent).
3. Pre-AIA § 102 applies (application filed 2010-08-26, priority 2009-04-21), so the operative sections are § 102(a)/(b)/(e); all 14 references predate the filing date, and the U.S. patents issued >1 year before filing are § 102(b) statutory bars.
4. No claim of US8851068B2 has been canceled or narrowed (per the earlier PTAB/litigation sections of this analysis), so all 18 claims remain as issued for this mapping exercise.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 8,851,068 B2 ("Personal inhalation devices") under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst memo · Prepared April 26, 2026 · Pre-AIA § 103 applies (application filed Aug. 26, 2010, i.e., before the March 16, 2013 AIA transition)

1. Legal framework and timing

Statutory basis. Because application 12/869,000 was filed August 26, 2010, the governing provision is pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) — a claim is unpatentable if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). Under Graham v. John Deere (1966), the inquiry requires: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the level of ordinary skill; and (4) objective indicia. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007), a combination of known elements is obvious when a POSITA would have had reason to combine them with a reasonable expectation of success, and "common sense" can supply a motivation even absent an express teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the references.

Priority-date caveat. The '068 patent is a continuation-in-part of three design applications (29/335,784; 29/335,785; 29/335,786, filed Apr. 21–22, 2009). Design applications cannot supply written-description support for utility subject matter, so the effective filing date for the utility claims is the August 26, 2010 utility filing date unless an earlier actual invention date is proven. Every reference discussed below published before August 26, 2010 and therefore qualifies as prior art under § 102(a)/(b) without need for an invention-date affidavit.

Level of ordinary skill. A POSITA would be an engineer or designer (electrical/mechanical) with 2–4 years' experience in portable, battery-powered aerosol/inhalation devices — familiar with electronic cigarettes (Hon/Ruyan-type), medical inhalation electronics (dose counters, programmable nebulizers), heater control, and low-cost miniature assembly (LED light pipes, snap-fit housings). The patent's own "Background" concedes the core problem it addresses — uncontrolled and inconsistent nicotine dosing and regulatory concern — which is itself the express problem a POSITA would have been motivated to solve by combining puff-actuated e-cigarette hardware with dose-metering/programmable inhaler electronics that already existed.

2. Claim 1 element breakdown

Claim 1 (the sole independent claim) requires:

Elements 1[e]–1[k] and 1[l] are the claim's real novelty surface. Everything before them — cigarette-shell + liquid reservoir + puff-actuated heater producing inhalable vapor — is squarely in the pre-2010 Hon/Ruyan and Philip Morris art.

3. Primary prior art (verified disclosures)

The references below are confirmed as prior art by publication date and, in the case of the Hon and Philip Morris references, are corroborated by search results retrieved today. Several are on the face of the '068 patent itself (the USPTO front-page "References Cited" list, visible in the issued PDF at patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/bf/24/2c/429bb8cedc9609/US8851068.pdf).

A. Hon / Ruyan e-cigarette family (the foundational puff-actuated electronic cigarette art):

• US 2006/0196518 A1 ("Flameless electronic atomizing cigarette," Hon, filed Apr. 29, 2003, published Sep. 7, 2006) — cited by the examiner on the '068 patent.
• US 2007/0267031 A1 ("Electronic Atomization Cigarette," Hon, filed Apr. 14, 2004, published Nov. 22, 2007) — cited by the examiner on the '068 patent; used as an obviousness reference in real IPR practice (e.g., Ex. 1009 in IPR2015-00859 against U.S. 8,365,742).
• US 2009/0126745 A1 (Hon, published May 2009) — cited by the examiner on the '068 patent.

Verified disclosures from US 2006/0196518 (FreePatentsOnline / uspto.report):

• A cigarette-holder/pipe-shaped shell containing a nicotine solution storage container, an electric heater/vaporization nozzle, and a control circuit board.
• Puff actuation: a resistance sensor and/or airflow sensor detects suction; the control circuit then powers the heater (and micro pump) — i.e., puff-triggered atomization of liquid into vapor/aerosol discharged from the opening.
• Time-based metering: "the control circuit then stop[s] to supply power to the micro pump and the electric heater after a certain time delay… the electric heater is then turned off after a time delay… so as to guarantee a complete vaporization of the liquid after quantitative liquid injection" — i.e., per-puff heater on-time limitation and quantitative dose control.
• A red LED at the front end blinks for each smoking action, deliberately imitating a lit cigarette end; an LCD shows "operating state parameters, such as cell capacity, smoking times per day, average using cycle and warnings for over smoking."

Verified disclosures from US 2007/0267031 (uspto.report / patents-review.com / docketalarm Ex. 1009):

• Shell + mouthpiece; sequential arrangement of LED 1, cell 2, electronic circuit board 3, normal-pressure cavity 5, sensor 6, atomizer 9, liquid-supplying bottle 11, mouthpiece 15.
• Sensor is a reed switch 19 between first and second magnetic steels, the second magnet attached to a ripple film separating a negative-pressure cavity — a puff-induced differential pressure closes the reed switch (functionally identical to the '068 specification's reed-switch/magnet/flexible-member "pressure transducer 38").
• Atomizer 9 has an atomization cavity containing a heating element (platinum/Ni-Cr wire), in contact with the liquid-supplying bottle via a porous body; an optional display screen; a manual microswitch connected in parallel with the sensor for actuation without puffing.
• A "LED and a cell are provided at the front end within the shell, collectively constituting an integrity like a cigarette holder, cigar or a pipe."

B. Philip Morris electrically heated liquid smoking system

• US 2009/0272379 A1 / EP 2113178 A1 (Thorens et al., priority Apr. 30, 2008, published Nov. 4–5, 2009) — discloses a portable, cigarette-sized electrically heated system with a shell (power supply + electric circuitry) and a mouthpiece containing a liquid storage portion, a capillary wick, a heating element (preferably a coil of wire surrounding the wick), an air outlet, and an aerosol-forming chamber; air flows from an inlet over the heated wick to form the aerosol. Critically, it teaches:
  • a puff sensor (electromechanical/MEMS/optical), with "electric circuitry… arranged to provide an electric current pulse to the heating element when the sensor senses a user taking a puff," and "the time-period of the electric current pulse is pre-set, depending on the amount of liquid desired to be vaporized. The electric circuitry is preferably programmable for this purpose"; and
  • a puff indicator for indicating when the heating element is activated.
• (Related heater-power-control art in the same neighborhood: US 6,040,560, "Power controller and method of operating an electrical smoking article," Philip Morris, 2000 — temperature/power regulation for electrical smoking articles, useful against claim 12.)

C. Examiner-cited U.S. references on the face of the '068 patent (verified only as to number/date/class from the issued-PDF OCR; substantive content not independently retrieved in my searches and flagged accordingly):

• 4,520,451 (McLaughlin, 1985; USPC 700/236 — dispensing/control); 5,899,204 (Cochran, 1999; 128/205.23); 6,102,036 (Slutsky et al., 2000; 128/203.15 — respiratory drug delivery); 6,443,146 B1 (Voges, 2002; 128/200.14 — inhalation device); 6,684,880 B2 (Simpa, 2004; 128/200.16); 6,772,756 B3 (Shayan, 2004; 128/203.26); 7,131,599 B2 (Katase, 2006; 239/102.1 — atomizer/nebulizer); 7,617,821 B2 (Hughes, 2009; 128/200.24); US 2004/023368 A1 (Telfer et al., 2004; USPC 362/252 — illumination, i.e., an LED-and-lens/connector light assembly); US 2006/0196505 A1 (Izuchukwu, 2006; 128/203.15).
• These examiner citations confirm that dose-metering/programmable medical inhalation electronics (128/200–203 classes) and LED/lens light assemblies (362/252) were recognized by the examiner as the pertinent fields for the metering and indicator-light features.

D. Additional family/citation-context art (from the "Families Citing" web results): CN 100381083C and CN 2719043Y (Hon "non-combustible electronic spray cigarette" / "atomized electronic cigarette," 2003–2005), EP 1618803 A1 / EP 1736065 A1 (Hon), CN 201379072Y (Hon improved atomized e-cigarette, priority Feb. 2009). These corroborate the state of the e-cigarette art before August 2010.

4. Primary obviousness ground — Hon + Philip Morris

Proposed combination: US 2006/0196518 A1 (or US 2007/0267031 A1) in view of US 2009/0272379 A1 / EP 2113178 A1, optionally further in view of the examiner-cited dose-metering inhaler art (e.g., Slutsky 6,102,036; Voges 6,443,146) and the examiner-cited light-assembly art (Telfer US 2004/023368 A1).

Element-by-element rationale:

• 1[a] (shell/orifice/medium/deliverables): Hon '518 teaches a cigarette-shaped shell with a mouthpiece opening and a nicotine-solution container; Hon '7031 teaches a shell + mouthpiece + liquid-supplying bottle with a porous storage body. Nicotine is an express "deliverable" in the '068 specification.
• 1[b] (puff-actuated atomizing unit heating air; vapor discharged through orifice): Hon '518 teaches airflow drawn in through an inlet on suction, actuating the control circuit and driving the heater so the solution vaporizes into vapor ejected from the opening. Hon '7031 teaches the same puff-actuated airflow path (air inlet → normal-pressure cavity → sensor → atomizer → aerosol passage → mouthpiece) with a resistance heater in the atomization cavity. To the extent claim 1[b] is read strictly as "heats air flowing thereon, and the heated air atomizes the medium" (i.e., convective heating of the airstream that then strips/atomizes medium from a wick), Philip Morris '379 supplies that exact mechanism: a heating coil around the second end of a capillary wick, with the air flow passing over the heated wick end to form an aerosol in the chamber. The '068 specification itself describes a heating coil over which "the air is heated" and then "passes over the wick causing the medium… to be atomized" — a POSITA would recognize Hon's heater-in-the-air-path and PM's coil-around-wick as the two known implementations of the same idea, interchangeable by routine design.
• 1[c] (metering control electronics): Hon '518's control circuit cuts heater power after a fixed time delay to achieve "quantitative liquid injection" per puff — on-time-based per-puff dose limiting (the exact mechanism of dependent claim 11). PM '379 expressly teaches dose metering by "pre-set" current-pulse duration "depending on the amount of liquid desired to be vaporized," with programmable circuitry. This is a strong, express disclosure of electronic metering of the dose per puff.
• 1[d] (input device for selectively programming operating parameters): PM '379 discloses programmable circuitry (though it does not detail the user-interface mechanism). Hon '7031 discloses a manual microswitch in parallel with the puff sensor — a user-operable input affecting actuation. The gap — a user-facing programming interface — is filled by the medical-inhaler electronics art the examiner himself cited (Slutsky 6,102,036 and Voges 6,443,146 are in respiratory-drug-delivery classes where user-programmable dose regimens, lockouts, and data capture were routine by 2000–2002), and by the general, well-known practice of user-configurable parameters in portable electronic inhalers.
• 1[e]–1[k] (indicator-light assembly): Hon '518 teaches a blinking red LED at the cigarette front end simulating a lit cigarette; Hon '7031 teaches an LED + cell "at the front end within the shell" forming a cigarette-like tip. Neither spells out the specific base-with-socket/lens-with-two-connectors/tip-member stack. But the claimed stack is a conventional miniature light-pipe/lens/bezel construction: a translucent base acting as a light pipe that transmits to a visible lens, retained by annular lips in grooves, with an opaque end cap. Telfer US 2004/023368 A1 was cited by the examiner in class 362/252 (light source + support/lens connector assemblies), and this class of snap-together LED lens/bezel/tip hardware was mundane in flashlight, penlight, and toy-cigarette manufacture. The '068 specification's own description (retaining lips received in annular grooves; rib-in-slot anti-rotation; interference fits) reads like a catalog of standard assembly features. A POSITA combining Hon's glowing tip with standard LED-lens mounting would arrive at the claimed assembly with no more than routine design choice; each structural sub-feature (translucent base, lens with connectors on both ends, opaque tip cap, LED mounted to the base) is individually conventional.
• 1[l] (pin OR pressure-transducer-sequence programming): This is the weakest link for a petitioner and the claim's best hope. No retrieved reference expressly teaches (i) a plug-in programming pin whose resistance/teeth encode a dose regimen for an e-cigarette, or (ii) using the puff-sensing pressure transducer as a sequence-coded user input (puff/tap Morse-code-style programming). A petitioner would argue: (a) keyed/plug-in programming elements that encode parameters by resistance or mechanical coding were ubiquitous in consumer electronics and disposables before 2010 (e.g., game cartridges, keyed dongles, resistor-coded modules) — but that argument needs a concrete reference, which my searches did not surface; and (b) using an already-present sensor as a user input (tap codes, puff patterns) was known in portable devices, and Hon '7031 already showed a manual switch in parallel with the puff sensor, evidencing that the puff-actuation channel could be repurposed for user input — but no reference of which I have verified content teaches programming via inhalation/tap sequences. These would be argued under KSR "common sense," which is plausible but contested.

Motivation to combine (articulated, not conclusory):

1. Same field, same problem. Hon and PM both address portable, electrically heated, liquid-based inhalation devices delivering nicotine/aerosol. The '068 patent's own Background identifies the problem: regulators objected to uncontrolled and inconsistent nicotine doses in e-cigarettes. A POSITA seeking regulatory acceptability would naturally turn to the programmable, dose-pulse-controlled PM '379 system (which expressly sizes the pulse to "the amount of liquid desired to be vaporized") and to medical inhaler electronics (Slutsky/Voges) that already solved dose metering and regimen programming — then apply them to the Hon-style cigarette-form device. This is the classic "known problem in the art + known solution in an adjacent art" combination KSR finds obvious.
2. Interchangeable mechanisms. Hon's heater-in-atomization-chamber and PM's coil-around-wick are two embodiments of the same vaporization concept; PM '379 itself says the ambient air "may be heated before passing through the system." The '068 device's own airflow architecture (air drawn past the coil, over the wick) is exactly PM's, in Hon's cigarette form factor.
3. Design incentive for the light assembly. Hon already taught the glowing tip as a cigarette-combustion simulator. Making the tip an illuminated translucent lens visible around the circumference (as claim 1 requires) is a natural styling improvement with a predictable result.
4. Reasonable expectation of success. All components (battery, reed-switch puff sensor, heater coil, wick, reservoir, LED, programmable microcontroller, timer) were off-the-shelf and had been combined in the very devices the references describe.

Dependent-claim exposure (strong):

• Claim 11 (meter per-puff dose by atomizer on-time): literally Hon '518's time-delayed heater shut-off, and PM '379's pre-set pulse duration.
• Claim 12 (temperature-based metering): PM '379's controlled heating and Philip Morris's US 6,040,560 power/temperature controller for electrical smoking articles.
• Claims 14–17 (per-period dose caps — minimum interval, activation-count cap, cumulative-on-time cap): routine timer/counter programming of the already-programmable PM '379 control electronics; Hon '518 already counts "smoking times per day" and warns on "over smoking," evidencing that puff counting was in the art. Implementing a cap ("no more than five puffs in 30 minutes") from a puff count and clock is textbook microcontroller logic with a predictable result.
• Claims 2, 9, 10, 13, 18: these track the same metering/programmability concepts and rise or fall with claim 1 or with the strong per-puff/per-period metering art.

5. Realistic strength assessment

Strongest ground (high confidence of a prima facie case through element 1[d]): Hon '518 or '7031 + PM '379 (+ dose-metering inhaler art) reads on elements 1[a]–1[c] and on metering dependent claims 2, 10–17 with minimal interpretive strain. The claim-construction risk here is 1[b]'s "heats air… and the heated air atomizes the medium" — if a court reads 1[b] to require purely convective heating with no direct heater–liquid contact, the combination of Hon (direct heating) with PM '379 (air drawn over a heated wick end) covers the field; Hon's own airflow over the heater in the atomization cavity arguably meets it anyway.

Moderate ground: indicator-light assembly 1[e]–1[k] — each element is conventional, but no single retrieved reference shows the entire base/socket + two-connector lens + tip + LED stack in an e-cigarette. A petitioner would need Telfer (or equivalent 362/252 art) plus a showing that the stack is a design-choice arrangement of known parts. KSR "obvious to try" / finite set of known snap-fit lens constructions helps here.

Weakest ground (significant exposure for a petitioner): 1[d]/1[l] — the user programming interface limited to a pin or a sequence-triggered pressure transducer. This is a deliberately narrowed, unconventional claiming strategy (the specification lists ten-plus input-device options — buttons, switches, ports, RF, accelerometer, magnetic induction, bi-directional LED, cartridge chips — but claim 1 is limited to just two). No prior art I retrieved teaches sequence-of-puffs/taps programming or a programming pin for an e-cigarette. A petitioner must either find uncited art (e.g., early programmable inhalers with key/dongle programmers, or "tap-code" consumer devices) or argue common sense — which the PTAB and courts often reject when the feature is a claim's point of novelty.

Patentee's likely counterarguments: (i) no single reference or combination teaches the claimed programming interface; (ii) the pressure-transducer-as-sequence-input is a non-obvious repurposing of the puff sensor; (iii) the specific multi-part translucent tip assembly produces an unexpected "glowing cigarette" aesthetic; (iv) Hon and PM are non-analogous to user-programmable devices. Secondary considerations: no evidence of commercial success, long-felt need, copying, or industry skepticism surfaced in any prior section of this analysis — the assignee (AJ Marketing LLC) has no identified product, and the patent has sat unchallenged for 11+ years (see PTAB section), which cuts against, not for, patentability.

6. Bottom line

• A prima facie § 103 case can be made with reasonable confidence for elements 1[a]–1[c] and dependent claims 2, 10–17 using Hon (US 2006/0196518 A1 and/or US 2007/0267031 A1) + Philip Morris (US 2009/0272379 A1 / EP 2113178 A1), supplemented by the examiner-cited dose-metering inhaler references (e.g., 6,102,036; 6,443,146) and heater-control art (6,040,560).
• The decisive battleground is claim 1's last clause (1[l]) — the pin/pressure-transducer-sequence programming limitation — and secondarily the complete indicator-light stack (1[e]–1[k]). The prior art retrieved here does not contain an express disclosure of either; both would have to be carried by argument (design choice, common sense, known keyed-programming and tap-input conventions in other fields) rather than by a clean reference.
• Confidence caveats: I could not verify the substantive disclosures of several examiner-cited references (McLaughlin 4,520,451; Cochran 5,899,204; Slutsky 6,102,036; Voges 6,443,146; Simpa 6,684,880; Shayan 6,772,756; Katase 7,131,599; Hughes 7,617,821; Telfer 2004/023368; Izuchukwu 2006/0196505) beyond their numbers, dates, and USPTO classes as shown on the face of the '068 PDF. Before filing an IPR or advancing an invalidity contention in litigation, a petitioner should pull each full text and confirm the specific disclosures — particularly Telfer (for the light assembly) and Slutsky/Voges (for programmable dose metering) — and should run a fresh search for key/dongle-programmed inhalers and sequence/tap-coded user inputs in pre-2010 portable electronic devices, which is where the winning reference for element 1[l] would live if it exists.

Sources grounded in retrieved search results: issued '068 PDF front page (References Cited) at patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/bf/24/2c/429bb8cedc9609/US8851068.pdf; Hon '518 full text at FreePatentsOnline.com/y2006/0196518.html and uspto.report; Hon '7031 full text at uspto.report/patent/app/20070267031 and Ex. 1009 in IPR2015-00859 (DocketAlarm); Philip Morris '379 at FreePatentsOnline.com/y2009/0272379.html and EP 2113178 A1 at pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/EP-2113178-A1. Content not independently verified is flagged above.